Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Sensitization potential of medical devices detected by in vitro and in vivo methods

L. Svobodová, M. Rucki, A. Vlkova, K. Kejlova, D. Jírová, M. Dvorakova, H. Kolarova, H. Kandárová, P. Pôbiš, T. Heinonen, M. Maly

. 2021 ; 38 (3) : 419-430. [pub] 20210126

Language English Country Germany

Document type Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22004682

Medical devices must be tested before marketing in accordance with ISO EN 10993-10 in order to avoid skin sensi­tization. This standard predominantly refers to the in vivo test but does not exclude the use of in vitro methods that have been sufficiently technically and scientifically validated for medical device testing. It is foreseen that, due to the complexity of the sensitization endpoint, a combination of several methods will be needed to address all key events occurring in the sensitization process. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the sensitization potential of selected medical devices using a combination of in chemico (DPRA, OECD TG 442C) and in vitro (LuSens, OECD TG 442D) methods in comparison with the in vivo (LLNA DA, OECD TG 442A) method and to suggest a possible testing strategy for the safety assessment of medical device extracts. Overall, one of the 42 tested samples exhibited positive results in all employed test methods, while 33 samples were predicted as non-sensitizing in all three performed methods. This study demonstrated good agreement between in vitro and in vivo results regarding non-sensitizing samples; however, some discrepancies in positive classification were recorded. A testing strategy is suggested in which negative results are accepted and any positive results in the in chemico or in vitro tests are followed up with a third in vitro test and evaluated in accordance with the “2 out of 3 approach”. This strategy may reduce and replace animal use for testing the sensitization potential of medical devices.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22004682
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20221024143403.0
007      
ta
008      
220113s2021 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.14573/altex.2008142 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33497461
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Svobodová, Lada $u Centre of Toxicology and Health Safety, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University in Olomouc, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Sensitization potential of medical devices detected by in vitro and in vivo methods / $c L. Svobodová, M. Rucki, A. Vlkova, K. Kejlova, D. Jírová, M. Dvorakova, H. Kolarova, H. Kandárová, P. Pôbiš, T. Heinonen, M. Maly
520    9_
$a Medical devices must be tested before marketing in accordance with ISO EN 10993-10 in order to avoid skin sensi­tization. This standard predominantly refers to the in vivo test but does not exclude the use of in vitro methods that have been sufficiently technically and scientifically validated for medical device testing. It is foreseen that, due to the complexity of the sensitization endpoint, a combination of several methods will be needed to address all key events occurring in the sensitization process. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the sensitization potential of selected medical devices using a combination of in chemico (DPRA, OECD TG 442C) and in vitro (LuSens, OECD TG 442D) methods in comparison with the in vivo (LLNA DA, OECD TG 442A) method and to suggest a possible testing strategy for the safety assessment of medical device extracts. Overall, one of the 42 tested samples exhibited positive results in all employed test methods, while 33 samples were predicted as non-sensitizing in all three performed methods. This study demonstrated good agreement between in vitro and in vivo results regarding non-sensitizing samples; however, some discrepancies in positive classification were recorded. A testing strategy is suggested in which negative results are accepted and any positive results in the in chemico or in vitro tests are followed up with a third in vitro test and evaluated in accordance with the “2 out of 3 approach”. This strategy may reduce and replace animal use for testing the sensitization potential of medical devices.
650    12
$a alternativy testů na zvířatech $7 D000826
650    _2
$a zvířata $7 D000818
650    _2
$a biotest $7 D001681
650    12
$a alergická kontaktní dermatitida $7 D017449
650    _2
$a techniky in vitro $7 D066298
650    _2
$a pilotní projekty $7 D010865
650    _2
$a kůže $7 D012867
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Rucki, Marian $u Centre of Toxicology and Health Safety, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Vlkova, Alena $u Centre of Toxicology and Health Safety, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kejlova, Kristina $u Centre of Toxicology and Health Safety, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jírová, Dagmar $u Centre of Toxicology and Health Safety, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Dvorakova, Marketa $u Centre of Toxicology and Health Safety, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kolarova, Hana $u Department of Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University in Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kandárová, Helena $u Centre of Experimental Medicine, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia $u Institute of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Pôbiš, Peter, $u Institute of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia $d 1996- $7 xx0277953
700    1_
$a Heinonen, Tuula $u FICAM, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
700    1_
$a Maly, Marek $u Centre of Toxicology and Health Safety, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00200128 $t ALTEX $x 1868-596X $g Roč. 38, č. 3 (2021), s. 419-430
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33497461 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220113 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20221024143401 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1751987 $s 1155831
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 38 $c 3 $d 419-430 $e 20210126 $i 1868-596X $m ALTEX $n ALTEX $x MED00200128
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220113

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options